Just for fun...
Scene 3
[clop clop]
ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Old Man, sorry. What knight live in that castle over there?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven -- I'm not old!
ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you `Man'.
DENNIS: Well, you could say `Dennis'.
ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called `Dennis.'
DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the `old woman,' but from the behind
you looked--
DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior!
ARTHUR: Well, I AM king...
DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. An' how'd you get that, eh? By
exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma
which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society!
If there's ever going to be any progress--
WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh -- how d'you do?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that,
eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,
you saw it didn't you?
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
When the Government Promises It Won’t Abuse Its Powers, It’s Lying
by Kevin Carson
Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne used to point out (“The 7 Vital Principles of Government”) the obvious truth that, no matter what promises are made by the sponsors of a law you favor, and no matter what their stated rationale for it, once it’s passed it will be interpreted and enforced by people utterly unaccountable to you. And it will most likely be interpreted by people you don’t like, to serve the interests of the powerful.
In World War I the Wilson administration and legislative sponsors of the Sedition Act assured the public it would be used only to prosecute those who actively interfered with the war effort or hampered conscription — not to harass dissidents who publicly criticized the government or disagreed with the war on policy grounds. The ensuing mass arrests of left-wing dissidents under the Sedition Act, including Socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs, were the largest repression of dissent in American history from the Civil War to the present.
More recently, we’ve seen the abuse of RICO statutes — ostensibly passed for the comparatively narrow purpose of fighting organized crime — to suppress political movements out of favor with the government.
Now we’re seeing an especially instructive example of this phenomenon: Homeland Security’s seizure, at the behest of the music and movie industries, of the domain names of dozens of websites which were accused (but not charged, tried or convicted) of promoting copyright infringement. You just go to a URL, and in place of the former website you see a menacing Department of Justice logo. Please note that the “infringing activities” of some of the websites which were shut down consisted entirely of providing search engine results linking to torrent sites. So apparently there’s no longer even a safe harbor for those who link to alleged “copyright infringers.”
Most people who supported the USA PATRIOT Act and the creation of DHS, no matter how unjustifiably, presumably believed that those extraordinary grants of power would be used only for the extraordinary purpose of fighting genuine terror networks like Al Qaeda and preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. It should be abundantly clear now that those people were had.
Homeland Security is expanding its mission into areas totally unrelated to the ostensible purpose for which it was initially sold to the public. And it is engaging in this mission creep under the influence of powerful economic interests which are totally unaccountable to the public: Namely, Joe Biden’s friends in the MPAA and RIAA.
Read more
Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne used to point out (“The 7 Vital Principles of Government”) the obvious truth that, no matter what promises are made by the sponsors of a law you favor, and no matter what their stated rationale for it, once it’s passed it will be interpreted and enforced by people utterly unaccountable to you. And it will most likely be interpreted by people you don’t like, to serve the interests of the powerful.
In World War I the Wilson administration and legislative sponsors of the Sedition Act assured the public it would be used only to prosecute those who actively interfered with the war effort or hampered conscription — not to harass dissidents who publicly criticized the government or disagreed with the war on policy grounds. The ensuing mass arrests of left-wing dissidents under the Sedition Act, including Socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs, were the largest repression of dissent in American history from the Civil War to the present.
More recently, we’ve seen the abuse of RICO statutes — ostensibly passed for the comparatively narrow purpose of fighting organized crime — to suppress political movements out of favor with the government.
Now we’re seeing an especially instructive example of this phenomenon: Homeland Security’s seizure, at the behest of the music and movie industries, of the domain names of dozens of websites which were accused (but not charged, tried or convicted) of promoting copyright infringement. You just go to a URL, and in place of the former website you see a menacing Department of Justice logo. Please note that the “infringing activities” of some of the websites which were shut down consisted entirely of providing search engine results linking to torrent sites. So apparently there’s no longer even a safe harbor for those who link to alleged “copyright infringers.”
Most people who supported the USA PATRIOT Act and the creation of DHS, no matter how unjustifiably, presumably believed that those extraordinary grants of power would be used only for the extraordinary purpose of fighting genuine terror networks like Al Qaeda and preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. It should be abundantly clear now that those people were had.
Homeland Security is expanding its mission into areas totally unrelated to the ostensible purpose for which it was initially sold to the public. And it is engaging in this mission creep under the influence of powerful economic interests which are totally unaccountable to the public: Namely, Joe Biden’s friends in the MPAA and RIAA.
Read more
Not All of the Founding Fathers Were Patriots
I finally took the time to watch the HBO documentary, "John Adams," and found it engaging even as it opened my eyes to the fact that I much more a Jeffersonian than most of my everyday, religious-right, conservative acquaintances. To my disappointment, I heard former president John Adams sounding like a typical, modern-day liberal. It is no wonder that his eldest son, the over-achiever/responsible child of Adam's clearly dysfunctional family, who later became sixth president of the United States, immediately assumed the roll of a socialist leader. It was only Thomas Jefferson who I found consistently reasonable. In vain, Jefferson continuously beat the drum of libertarianism to Adams during his presidency. For some reason, many people, the religious right, neo-conservatives especially, tend to delude themselves by idealizing our founding fathers as being the apostles of the "free world." Deeper investigation shows that this was far from the case.
As Polycentricorder.com puts it, "In the first place its important to recognize that not all of the “founding fathers” were patriots. There was quite a large contingency of men during those formative years that were not in favor of liberty for mankind, nor for low taxation, nor for a limited government. Ben Franklin at one point put fourth the idea of doing away with the states entirely and having a single central government to rule the entire country. Hamilton envisioned an American empire based off the British Empire. And George Washington after Fighting a war over taxes on tea, was ready to fight a war against his own people who were rebelling over his unjust tax on whiskey. On the other side there were principled men, who were of the opinion that what London was doing wasn’t right, and it wouldn’t be right even if it were our government that did it. George Mason, and Patrick Henry, chief among them, campaigned against the Ratification of the Constitution in Virginia, and were instrumental in the drafting of the Bill of Rights, without which, the constitution would be clearly seen for what it is, the Charter of a centralized, overbearing, intrusive and unjust centralized government."
"The Constitution is not holy, it was not written by the finger of God on stone tablets and brought down from Mount Sini by Washington! the men who voted for it, were not founding fathers, but traitors to the revolution. Its justification, the very excuse for a stronger centralized government was to beat the british and gain our independence, they said the Articles were not strong enough. And if we lived in Ray Bradbury’s novel, we might accept this as truth, but the fact is that the King signed a peace treaty with the 13 colonies and Vermont four years before the constitution was ratified. Turns out the constitution was entirely unnecessary. Yet there was a silver lining, in that dark our. The Anti Federalist, those against a strong centralized government gave us the bill of rights, the first 10 amendments to the constitution."
Read more here: Polycentricorder
As Polycentricorder.com puts it, "In the first place its important to recognize that not all of the “founding fathers” were patriots. There was quite a large contingency of men during those formative years that were not in favor of liberty for mankind, nor for low taxation, nor for a limited government. Ben Franklin at one point put fourth the idea of doing away with the states entirely and having a single central government to rule the entire country. Hamilton envisioned an American empire based off the British Empire. And George Washington after Fighting a war over taxes on tea, was ready to fight a war against his own people who were rebelling over his unjust tax on whiskey. On the other side there were principled men, who were of the opinion that what London was doing wasn’t right, and it wouldn’t be right even if it were our government that did it. George Mason, and Patrick Henry, chief among them, campaigned against the Ratification of the Constitution in Virginia, and were instrumental in the drafting of the Bill of Rights, without which, the constitution would be clearly seen for what it is, the Charter of a centralized, overbearing, intrusive and unjust centralized government."
"The Constitution is not holy, it was not written by the finger of God on stone tablets and brought down from Mount Sini by Washington! the men who voted for it, were not founding fathers, but traitors to the revolution. Its justification, the very excuse for a stronger centralized government was to beat the british and gain our independence, they said the Articles were not strong enough. And if we lived in Ray Bradbury’s novel, we might accept this as truth, but the fact is that the King signed a peace treaty with the 13 colonies and Vermont four years before the constitution was ratified. Turns out the constitution was entirely unnecessary. Yet there was a silver lining, in that dark our. The Anti Federalist, those against a strong centralized government gave us the bill of rights, the first 10 amendments to the constitution."
Read more here: Polycentricorder
Nullification
The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The following are excerpts from the article entitled, While the Ninth Amendment and the Right of Nullification Protect Our Freedom, Let Us Also Repeal the 20th Century!, taken from the website, ReasonAndJest.com.
"There are so many reasons for Americans to understand and practice nullification — nullifying federal intrusions into our lives and nullifying federal restrictions on our private personal and economic lives and livelihoods."
Murray Rothbard noted, "With the inspiration of the death of the Soviet Union before us, we now know that it can be done. We shall break the clock of social democracy. We shall break the clock of the Great Society. We shall break the clock of the welfare state. We shall break the clock of the New Deal. We shall break the clock of Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom and perpetual war. We shall repeal the 20th century."
Read the entire article at ReasonAndJest
"There are so many reasons for Americans to understand and practice nullification — nullifying federal intrusions into our lives and nullifying federal restrictions on our private personal and economic lives and livelihoods."
Murray Rothbard noted, "With the inspiration of the death of the Soviet Union before us, we now know that it can be done. We shall break the clock of social democracy. We shall break the clock of the Great Society. We shall break the clock of the welfare state. We shall break the clock of the New Deal. We shall break the clock of Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom and perpetual war. We shall repeal the 20th century."
Read the entire article at ReasonAndJest
POLITICAL PONEROLOGY
PONEROLOGY: The study of evil.
“In the author’s opinion, Ponerology reveals itself to be a new branch of science born out of historical need and the most recent accomplishments of medicine and psychology. In light of objective naturalistic language, it studies the causal components and processes of the genesis of evil, regardless of the latter’s social scope. We may attempt to analyze these ponerogenic processes which have given rise to human injustice, armed with proper knowledge, particularly in the area of psychopathology. Again and again, as the reader will discover, in such a study, we meet with the effects of pathological factors whose carriers are people characterized by some degree of various psychological deviations or defects.” (Lobaczewski, 42)...
"Oversimplification of the causative picture as regards the genesis of evil, often to a single easily understood cause or one perpetrator, itself becomes a cause in this genesis. . . . Any attempt to explain the things that occurred during the first half of our [twentieth] century by means of categories generally accepted in historical thought leaves a nagging feeling of inadequacy. Only a ponerological approach can compensate for this deficit in our comprehension, as it does justice to the role of various pathological factors in the genesis of evil at every social level." (Lobaczewski, 144, 109)
Read more: http://www.ponerology.com/index.html
“In the author’s opinion, Ponerology reveals itself to be a new branch of science born out of historical need and the most recent accomplishments of medicine and psychology. In light of objective naturalistic language, it studies the causal components and processes of the genesis of evil, regardless of the latter’s social scope. We may attempt to analyze these ponerogenic processes which have given rise to human injustice, armed with proper knowledge, particularly in the area of psychopathology. Again and again, as the reader will discover, in such a study, we meet with the effects of pathological factors whose carriers are people characterized by some degree of various psychological deviations or defects.” (Lobaczewski, 42)...
"Oversimplification of the causative picture as regards the genesis of evil, often to a single easily understood cause or one perpetrator, itself becomes a cause in this genesis. . . . Any attempt to explain the things that occurred during the first half of our [twentieth] century by means of categories generally accepted in historical thought leaves a nagging feeling of inadequacy. Only a ponerological approach can compensate for this deficit in our comprehension, as it does justice to the role of various pathological factors in the genesis of evil at every social level." (Lobaczewski, 144, 109)
Read more: http://www.ponerology.com/index.html
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
I'm Back
I stopped blogging last year. I started homeschooling, I became busy with other things and finally I even forgot what account blogger was set up in. I opened a Facebook account and began using that instead. I started to save articles and links and interesting things on a Word document thinking someday I would add this again. I have evolved from a conservative to a conspiracy theorist to a voluntarist. Today, I found my account and opened it. Maybe I will start to fill some pages again.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Cop Tases Mom As Her Children Watch
David Edwards and Daniel Tencer
Raw Story
August 14, 2009
Raw Story
August 14, 2009
A police officer in the Syracuse, New York, area Tasered a 37-year-old mom repeatedly in front of her children during a routine traffic stop—and then arrested the mom, leaving the children [5 and 15 years old] alone in their family minivan for 40 minutes in freezing weather.
The incident took place in Onondaga County, New York, on January 31, but dashcam video of the incident only recently came to light.
Read MoreWhat Are We Legally Required To Tell The Police?
Meet "THE ANTI-TERRORIST". This Britt, most likely a cop himself, attempts to educate average, law-abiding citizens of their legal rights.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Iraqi Civilian & US Military Casualty Counters
We'll need to start one for Afghanistan as well.
Number of violent civilian deaths since the invasion:
US MILITARY Casualty Count
Number of violent civilian deaths since the invasion:
US MILITARY Casualty Count
Separating School & State: How To Liberate American Families
by Sheldon Richman
This is taken from Sheldon Richman's book, Separating School & State: How To Liberate American Families.
Let our pupil be taught that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property. Let him be taught to love his family, but let him be taught at the same time that he must forsake and even forget them when the welfare of his country requires it.
- Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence
Read More:
This is taken from Sheldon Richman's book, Separating School & State: How To Liberate American Families.
Let our pupil be taught that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property. Let him be taught to love his family, but let him be taught at the same time that he must forsake and even forget them when the welfare of his country requires it.
- Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence
Why were the public schools ever established? Did the private sector fail to set up schools or set up too few of them? Were large segments of society barred from obtaining education? Was the education of poor quality? The answer to the last three questions is no. The public schools were not established to make up for any deficiency in people's ability to learn to read, write, do arithmetic, and acquire knowledge of other subjects. The government schools were set up for another purpose entirely. [Snip]
Throughout history, rulers and court intellectuals have aspired to use the educational system to shape their nations. The model was set out by Plato in The Republic and was constructed most faithfully in Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany. But one need not look only to extreme cases to find such uses of the educational system. One can see how irresistible a vehicle the schools would be to any social engineer. They represent a unique opportunity to mold future citizens early in life, to instill in them the proper reverence for the ruling culture, and to prepare them to be obedient and obeisant taxpayers and soldiers. Unsurprisingly, rulers and intellectuals jumped at the chance to make the schools a mill for the creation of Good Citizens. That motivation has been part of every effort to establish government schools.
Read More:
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Liberty & Tyranny
“We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny.”
~ Abraham Lincoln
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Time for Government to Finally Ban Itself
May 29, 2009
-1-
Behind the Mask, Systematic Evil
After centuries and millennia of tyranny, war, mass murder, torture, corruption, legalized theft, unjust imprisonment, economic devastation, and other needless evil, isn't it finally time we banned the cause of all that horror?
Can we not find the strength to end this intrusive, violent, coercive scam – this conspiracy against love and freedom, this formalized über-criminal empire, this sick enabler of Hitler and Stalin and Kim Jong-Il and so many other psychopaths, this boot on the neck of every man, woman and child? Is it not time, and long past time, to stop putting up with government wars and government concentration camps and government injustice and government central-planning inefficiency (directly or via government-granted monopoly) and other methods of government impoverishment and cruelty? Will we not finally understand that running society via coercion and violence is not merely inefficient but horribly, shockingly wrong?
There is only one way to do all that – only one way to save the human race from the terror and poverty and violence and other cruelty that government has inflicted for centuries: put an end to the evil of coercive government itself.
We have tried small, restrained government and seen it grow into large, unrestrained tyranny. This has happened in the United States ("Electronic Police State 2008, National Rankings" [ U.S. rank: 6th worst out of 52]; PDF) and to one extent or another in every nation that has ever tried to tame and reform government. Slowly at first and then with shocking speed, the original positive intent (assuming there ever was one) is subverted, corrupted, and eventually erased. The coercive power of government increases relentlessly and moves ever-more into the hands of those who lust for power.
Taming the beast has not worked – and why would it? Removing this sick, twisted, neurotic tool for psychopaths from the list of available options is the only way to prevent its capture by those with an unhealthy need for power.
The good news is that government is not a necessary evil but merely an ancient one. We can stop this evil and transition to a healthy, compassionate, efficient, non-coercive society whenever we finally break the spell of pro-government propaganda in enough minds.
-2-
But . . . Who Will Pay for the Roads? Who Will Regulate Business?
For that matter, who (to paraphrase a famous Bushism) will make sure that "our children is learning?" Who will pay for healthcare? And especially – here, the public lip trembles in fear – who will save us from [insert currently-hyped boogie-man or other excuse for increasing government control]?
The answer to all such questions is: "Grow up."
Really, who did you THINK was paying for all those things now – the Government Funding Fairy? Government has no wealth to fund anything with, beyond what it takes from the people. And who did you think was out there building and maintaining the roads, or providing air traffic control, or regulating industries – alien lifeforms attached to the Government Borg? Of course not. The men and women maintaining the roads are ordinary people, and the money to pay for their work comes from your pocket and the pockets of other taxpayers. [snip]
Can we not find the strength to end this intrusive, violent, coercive scam – this conspiracy against love and freedom, this formalized über-criminal empire, this sick enabler of Hitler and Stalin and Kim Jong-Il and so many other psychopaths, this boot on the neck of every man, woman and child? Is it not time, and long past time, to stop putting up with government wars and government concentration camps and government injustice and government central-planning inefficiency (directly or via government-granted monopoly) and other methods of government impoverishment and cruelty? Will we not finally understand that running society via coercion and violence is not merely inefficient but horribly, shockingly wrong?
There is only one way to do all that – only one way to save the human race from the terror and poverty and violence and other cruelty that government has inflicted for centuries: put an end to the evil of coercive government itself.
We have tried small, restrained government and seen it grow into large, unrestrained tyranny. This has happened in the United States ("Electronic Police State 2008, National Rankings" [ U.S. rank: 6th worst out of 52]; PDF) and to one extent or another in every nation that has ever tried to tame and reform government. Slowly at first and then with shocking speed, the original positive intent (assuming there ever was one) is subverted, corrupted, and eventually erased. The coercive power of government increases relentlessly and moves ever-more into the hands of those who lust for power.
Taming the beast has not worked – and why would it? Removing this sick, twisted, neurotic tool for psychopaths from the list of available options is the only way to prevent its capture by those with an unhealthy need for power.
The good news is that government is not a necessary evil but merely an ancient one. We can stop this evil and transition to a healthy, compassionate, efficient, non-coercive society whenever we finally break the spell of pro-government propaganda in enough minds.
-2-
But . . . Who Will Pay for the Roads? Who Will Regulate Business?
For that matter, who (to paraphrase a famous Bushism) will make sure that "our children is learning?" Who will pay for healthcare? And especially – here, the public lip trembles in fear – who will save us from [insert currently-hyped boogie-man or other excuse for increasing government control]?
The answer to all such questions is: "Grow up."
Really, who did you THINK was paying for all those things now – the Government Funding Fairy? Government has no wealth to fund anything with, beyond what it takes from the people. And who did you think was out there building and maintaining the roads, or providing air traffic control, or regulating industries – alien lifeforms attached to the Government Borg? Of course not. The men and women maintaining the roads are ordinary people, and the money to pay for their work comes from your pocket and the pockets of other taxpayers. [snip]
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan
If you are not much concerned about the lives of civilians (human beings with hearts) in other countries (and yes, unlike the mainstream news reports, this includes families, women and children in the middle east and reports of heinous acts committed them within these existing facilities to the point where I cannot even bring myself to post about it yet because they are too horrible to think about), then consider that there are detention facilities for you too here in the US. They were started under the Bush administration along with the damning Patriot Act. It does not take much research to connect the dots and see that, at some point, this will happen here at home with those labeled as "domestic terrorists." When I did this research, I truly became fearful of our federal government for the first time in my life, but I could not stop researching. As I have, please choose wisely if you would like to speak up.
Obama Is Said To Consider Preventive Detention Plan
Obama Is Said To Consider Preventive Detention Plan
WASHINGTON — President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a “preventive detention” system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Oath Keepers
Updated Video Below...
Oath Keepers is a group of Military, Veterans, and peace officers who have vowed to keep the oath they took to defend the Constitution, will not “just follow orders,” that override the consitution. The following is from their website:
Orders We Will NOT Obey:
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
Oath Keepers is a group of Military, Veterans, and peace officers who have vowed to keep the oath they took to defend the Constitution, will not “just follow orders,” that override the consitution. The following is from their website:
Orders We Will NOT Obey:
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
A Place For Us
I have to admit my despair along with others who hold to a similar philosophy about oppressive government and human rights. We feel we have no place to go to be left alone if that is what we desire and that is most certainly true here in the United States today. Some consider "virtual cantons," where we could be allowed to cohabit peacefully. Others wait ready to defend themselves as martial law is expected to be declared under so many potential pretenses. If there was a place on the earth we could move to experience freedom I would happily go and raise my children there. New Zealand has come up in discussions as this article in the Sunday Star Times points out a growing number of New Zealanders hoping for the same.
Sunday Star Times
Sam Buchanan
Anarchism is a personal and political philosophy based on the premise that no person has the right to have authority over another. We aren't opposed to organisation, but insist that it should always be fully democratic and voluntary. [snip]
Sam Buchanan
Anarchism is a personal and political philosophy based on the premise that no person has the right to have authority over another. We aren't opposed to organisation, but insist that it should always be fully democratic and voluntary. [snip]
The philosophy of anarchism is in many ways similar to the "green" movement, and many anarchists are involved with environmental campaigns and projects. Our opposition to authority and domination leads us to become involved in feminism, anti-military and anti-colonial movements, and to oppose racism and abuse. Anarchists are also often involved in mutual aid projects such as community gardens, collective workshops, art and music groups and rural communes.
We also see similarities to anarchism in many indigenous societies. While on the surface they may often appear hierarchical, there is often a subtle system of checks and balances that ensure leaders must carefully represent peoples' needs or quickly lose their authority. Read More
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Pastor Beaten by Boarder Patrol in Constitution Free Zone
This is what happens when our constitution becomes toilet paper.
Infowars
May 15, 2009
Pastor Stephen Anderson insisted on his constitutional rights while driving in the Constitution-free Zone in Arizona and was assaulted by border patrol thugs. Anderson was told by a Border Patrol (a fascist subset of the Ministry of Homeland Security) thug he was under arrest for refusing to exit his vehicle and when he refused to comply — citing the Constitution and probable cause — the window of his vehicle was shattered and he was tased.
On May 23, a protest rally will be held at the internal Constitution-free zone Gestapo checkpoint. The check point is located within a few miles of mile marker 75 which is about 75 miles east of Yuma, AZ on Interstate 8.
This is the actual footage from Pastor Anderson’s camcorder as well as from the surveillance cameras at the Border Patrol Checkpoint.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
The Absence of a Master
Some very interesting food for thought. How much of this was incorporated into the template of our original government? How much true freedom (the kind we are innately born with but is taken away from us by government systems) would be allowed today by the coercive governments around the world, including the current US government? With the population reformed by our government's youth education facilities, I would guess that fewer and fewer will think ask the question.
"Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organization."Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, What is Property , p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.
In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown:
"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation." [The Politics of Individualism, p. 106]
However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or "without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos and a return to the "laws of the jungle."
This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel. For example, in countries which have considered government by one person (monarchy) necessary, the words "republic" or "democracy" have been used precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion. Those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will obviously wish to imply that opposition to the current system cannot work in practice, and that a new form of society will only lead to chaos. Or, as Errico Malatesta expresses it:
"since it was thought that government was necessary and that without government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should sound like absence of order." [Anarchy, p. 16]
Read More
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)